Why I Refuse to Vote for Barack Obama (one man's tale)

The case against casting a ballot for the president -- even if you think he's better than Mitt Romney

Tell certain liberals and progressives that you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate who opposes gay rights, or who doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, and they'll nod along. Say that you'd never vote for a politician caught using the 'n'-word, even if you agreed with him on more policy issues than his opponent, and the vast majority of left-leaning Americans would understand. But these same people cannot conceive of how anyone can discern Mitt Romney's flaws, which I've chronicled in the course of the campaign, and still not vote for Obama.

Don't they see that Obama's transgressions are worse than any I've mentioned?

I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

Nope.

There are folks on the left who feel that way, of course. Some of them were protesting with the Occupy movement at the DNC. But the vast majority don't just continue supporting Obama. They can't even comprehend how anyone would decide differently. In a recent post, I excoriated the GOP and its conservative base for operating in a fantasy land with insufficient respect for empiricism or honest argument.

I ended the post with a one-line dig at the Democratic Party. "To hell with them both," I fumed.

Said a commenter, echoing an argument I hear all the time:

I mean, how can someone who just finished writing an article on how the Republican Party is too deluded, in the literal sense, to make good decisions about anything not prefer the other party?

Let me explain how.

I am not a purist. There is no such thing as a perfect political party, or a president who governs in accordance with one's every ethical judgment. But some actions are so ruinous to human rights, so destructive of the Constitution, and so contrary to basic morals that they are disqualifying. Most of you will go that far with me. If two candidates favored a return to slavery, or wanted to stone adulterers, you wouldn't cast your ballot for the one with the better position on health care. I am not equating President Obama with a slavery apologist or an Islamic fundamentalist. On one issue, torture, he issued an executive order against an immoral policy undertaken by his predecessor, and while torture opponents hoped for more, that is no small thing.

What I am saying is that Obama has done things that, while not comparable to a historic evil like chattel slavery, go far beyond my moral comfort zone. Everyone must define their own deal-breakers. Doing so is no easy task in this broken world. But this year isn't a close call for me.

I find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him:

Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.

Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.

Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

In different ways, each of these transgressions run contrary to candidate Obama's 2008 campaign. (To cite just one more example among many, Obama has done more than any modern executive to wage war on whistleblowers. In fact, under Obama, Bush-era lawbreakers, including literal torturers, have been subject to fewer and less draconian attempts at punishment them than some of the people who conscientiously came forward to report on their misdeeds.) Obama ran in the proud American tradition of reformers taking office when wartime excesses threatened to permanently change the nature of the country. But instead of ending those excesses, protecting civil liberties, rolling back executive power, and reasserting core American values, Obama acted contrary to his mandate. The particulars of his actions are disqualifying in themselves. But taken together, they put us on a course where policies Democrats once viewed as radical post-9/11 excesses are made permanent parts of American life.

There is a candidate on the ballot in at least 47 states, and probably in all 50, who regularly speaks out against that post-9/11 trend, and all the individual policies that compose it. His name is Gary Johnson, and he won't win. I am supporting him because he ought to. Liberals and progressives care so little about having critiques of the aforementioned policies aired that vanishingly few will even urge that he be included in the upcoming presidential debates. If I vote, it will be for Johnson. What about the assertion that Romney will be even worse than Obama has been on these issues? It is quite possible, though not nearly as inevitable as Democrats seem to think. It isn't as though they accurately predicted the abysmal behavior of Obama during his first term, after all. And how do you get worse than having set a precedent for the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens? By actually carrying out such a killing? Obama did that too. Would Romney? I honestly don't know. I can imagine he'd kill more Americans without trial and in secret, or that he wouldn't kill any. I can imagine that he'd kill more innocent Pakistani kids or fewer. His rhetoric suggests he would be worse. I agree with that. Then again, Romney revels in bellicosity; Obama soothes with rhetoric and kills people in secret.

To hell with them both.

Sometimes a policy is so reckless or immoral that supporting its backer as "the lesser of two evils" is unacceptable. If enough people start refusing to support any candidate who needlessly terrorizes innocents, perpetrates radical assaults on civil liberties, goes to war without Congress, or persecutes whistleblowers, among other misdeeds, post-9/11 excesses will be reined in.

If not?

So long as voters let the bipartisan consensus on these questions stand, we keep going farther down this road, America having been successfully provoked by Osama bin Laden into abandoning our values.

We tortured.

We started spying without warrants on our own citizens.

We detain indefinitely without trial or public presentation of evidence.

We continue drone strikes knowing they'll kill innocents, and without knowing that they'll make us safer.

Is anyone looking beyond 2012?

The future I hope for, where these actions are deal-breakers in at least one party (I don't care which), requires some beginning, some small number of voters to say, "These things I cannot support."

Are these issues important enough to justify a stand like that?

I think so.

I can respect the position that the tactical calculus I've laid out is somehow mistaken, though I tire of it being dismissed as if so obviously wrong that no argument need be marshaled against it. I am hardly the first to think that humans should sometimes "act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." I am hardly the first to recommend being the change you want to see. I can respect counterarguments, especially when advanced by utilitarians who have no deal-breakers of their own. But if you're a Democrat who has affirmed that you'd never vote for an opponent of gay equality, or a torturer, or someone caught using racial slurs, how can you vote for the guy who orders drone strikes that kill hundreds of innocents and terrorizes thousands more -- and who constantly hides the ugliest realities of his policy (while bragging about the terrorists it kills) so that Americans won't even have all the information sufficient to debate the matter for themselves?

How can you vilify Romney as a heartless plutocrat unfit for the presidency, and then enthusiastically recommend a guy who held Bradley Manning in solitary and killed a 16-year-old American kid? If you're a utilitarian who plans to vote for Obama, better to mournfully acknowledge that you regard him as the lesser of two evils, with all that phrase denotes.

But I don't see many Obama supporters feeling as reluctant as the circumstances warrant.

The whole liberal conceit that Obama is a good, enlightened man, while his opponent is a malign, hard-hearted cretin, depends on constructing a reality where the lives of non-Americans -- along with the lives of some American Muslims and whistleblowers -- just aren't valued. Alternatively, the less savory parts of Obama's tenure can just be repeatedly disappeared from the narrative of his first term, as so many left-leaning journalists, uncomfortable confronting the depths of the man's transgressions, have done over and over again.

Keen on Obama's civil-libertarian message and reassertion of basic American values, I supported him in 2008. Today I would feel ashamed to associate myself with his first term or the likely course of his second. I refuse to vote for Barack Obama. Have you any deal-breakers?

First paragraph: "Tell certain liberals and progressives that you can't bring yourself to vote for a candidate who opposes gay rights, or who doesn't believe in Darwinian evolution, and they'll nod along."

Naturally!! Tell me that you would never vote for a black man, or a gay for President, and you will be treated like a bigot.

"Say that you'd never vote for a politician caught using the 'n'-word, even if you agreed with him on more policy issues than his opponent, and the vast majority of left-leaning Americans would understand."

Again, people don't go around patting racist, homophobic bigots on the back for their narrow views..

" But these same people cannot conceive of how anyone can discern Mitt Romney's flaws, which I've chronicled in the course of the campaign, and still not vote for Obama."

This last sentence is so poorly written, I cannot really understand what the author is trying to say, Is he saying that these people can't understand how one can vote for Romney after learning about all his flaws? I agree.

"I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers.

Nope.

There are folks on the left who feel that way, of course. Some of them were protesting with the Occupy movement at the DNC. But the vast majority don't just continue supporting Obama. They can't even comprehend how anyone would decide differently."

""I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers. "

If Romeny wins, many many people who cannot afford healthcare in this country are going to die, simply because he doesn't care about the poorest people. DOnt cloud the issue by tossing out foreign wars and conflicts, as pretty much EVERY President had to cope with foreign (or domestic) conflicts. Romney is for furthering BIG MONEY's agenda, at the cost of the disenfranchised. Obama is on the other side of that battle.

If Romney wins, he will still be killing innocent people abroad, and maybe moreso. While some will say Obama is the lesser of two evils, I see Romney as wholey evil.

""I don't see how anyone who confronts Obama's record with clear eyes can enthusiastically support him. I do understand how they might concluded that he is the lesser of two evils, and back him reluctantly, but I'd have thought more people on the left would regard a sustained assault on civil liberties and the ongoing, needless killing of innocent kids as deal-breakers. "

If Romeny wins, many many people who cannot afford healthcare in this country are going to die, simply because he doesn't care about the poorest people. DOnt cloud the issue by tossing out foreign wars and conflicts, as pretty much EVERY President had to cope with foreign (or domestic) conflicts. Romney is for furthering BIG MONEY's agenda, at the cost of the disenfranchised. Obama is on the other side of that battle.

If Romney wins, he will still be killing innocent people abroad, and maybe moreso. While some will say Obama is the lesser of two evils, I see Romney as wholey evil.

New Stanford/NYU Study Documents the Civilian Terror from Obama's Drones (read). ‘Counterproductive’ drone war "terrorizes" civilians in Pakistan. The drone war has given rise to "anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities".

Obama signs law increasing aid to Israel day before Romney trip to Holy Land (read).

Obama in Yemen: Killing Civilians, Bolstering Dictatorship, and Bombing in Secret (read).Obama signs executive order giving himself control of all communication systems in America(read). U.S. beefs up Persian Gulf forces(read).

U.S. eyes return to some Southeast Asia military bases (in Vietnam, Thailand and the Philippines) (read).

Under Obama, the export of American arms to countries around the world -- even those actively repressing their own citizens -- is booming. The United States is the world's top provider of major conventional weapons (read).

New Stanford/NYU Study Documents the Civilian Terror from Obama's Drones (read). ‘Counterproductive’ drone war "terrorizes" civilians in Pakistan. The drone war has given rise to "anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities".

Under Obama, the export of American arms to countries around the world -- even those actively repressing their own citizens -- is booming. The United States is the world's top provider of major conventional weapons (read).

"After Japanese leaders flatly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, President Truman authorized use of the atomic bomb anytime after August 3, 1945. On the clear morning of August 6, the first atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy, was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Leveling over 60 percent of the city, 70,000 residents died instantaneously in a searing flash of heat. Three days later, on August 9, a second bomb, Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki. Over 20,000 people died instantly. In the successive weeks, thousands more Japanese died from the after effects of the radiation exposure of the blast. "

You need to look it with broad perspective. What is an atrocity to some, is a heavily-weighed decision for the best-case outcome...so why nitpick current foreign policy,which pales in comparison, as far as innocent lives lost. Idk...

President Obama Signs the NDAA Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision. “President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director (read).

U.S. drone strike in Yemen kills U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki. The lethal strike marked the first known case in which the Obama administration tracked down and killed a U.S. citizen. The raid also killed a second American, Samir Khan. (read). With the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality (read).

Photos & videos of Bin Laden's killing should not be released because they would reveal military and intelligence secrets and could lead to violence against U.S. personnel, the Obama administration argued (read).

I don't believe all of the people who are getting killed are harboring terrorists. I further believe that by our actions we make it more likely that people who aren't will harbor/become terrorists themselves.

'Course I also believe that decades of backing people like Bin Laden and Saddam and then leaving them twisting in the wind when they no longer suit our needs/stop being our lapdogs went a long way toward getting us into this mess to begin with. JMO, YMMV, KMS

On the clear morning of August 6, the first atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy, was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Leveling over 60 percent of the city, 70,000 residents died instantaneously in a searing flash of heat. Three days later, on August 9, a second bomb, Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki. Over 20,000 people died instantly. In the successive weeks, thousands more Japanese died from the after effects of the radiation exposure of the blast.

I don't believe all of the people who are getting killed are harboring terrorists. I further believe that by our actions we make it more likely that people who aren't will harbor/become terrorists themselves.

'Course I also believe that decades of backing people like Bin Laden and Saddam and then leaving them twisting in the wind when they no longer suit our needs/stop being our lapdogs went a long way toward getting us into this mess to begin with. JMO, YMMV, KMS

Study: Drones "Terrorize" Pakistani Civilians, Avoid Top Militants

A new study is backing claims that the United States has killed far more civilians in its Pakistan drone strikes than publicly acknowledged. Researchers at New York University and Stanford University say the drone strikes "terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves." The study also concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders.

Still, this racce is all about old money and racism, at the heart of it. Not Obama bullshitting to get votes, nor his foreign policy which can be argued has SAVED lives, in certain comparisons. It is about what they represent, and what their constituents represent and believe. One side is bigoted, racist, and on the whole ignorant and uneducated, and the other side is full of blacks, Latinos, gays, lesbians, and college graduates.

Romney is a cult member.
Obama is not.

I mean, lets cal a spade a spade here. This election is all about rich whitey vs the world.

On the clear morning of August 6, the first atomic bomb, nicknamed Little Boy, was dropped on the city of Hiroshima. Leveling over 60 percent of the city, 70,000 residents died instantaneously in a searing flash of heat. Three days later, on August 9, a second bomb, Fat Man, was dropped on Nagasaki. Over 20,000 people died instantly. In the successive weeks, thousands more Japanese died from the after effects of the radiation exposure of the blast.

Fine. If you want to marginalize death adn look to the past adn say "well, they all do it so it is OK."

Lets switch gears and talk about Obama's transparency and civil liberties record IN THIS country.

Just answer one question: When Bush started his wars and his civil liberty erosions following 9/11, were you in support of his actions by deflection to history?

Still, this racce is all about old money and racism, at the heart of it. Not Obama bullshitting to get votes, nor his foreign policy which can be argued has SAVED lives, in certain comparisons. It is about what they represent, and what their constituents represent and believe. One side is bigoted, racist, and on the whole ignorant and uneducated, and the other side is full of blacks, Latinos, gays, lesbians, and college graduates.

Romney is a cult member.Obama is not.

I mean, lets cal a spade a spade here. This election is all about rich whitey vs the world.

So Obama is saving the world now? Oh, good grief. Forghet i said anything.

This isn't about racisma dn old money. It's about the same status quo we had for the last decades. Obama is a status quo guy. He isn't changing shit. His foreign policy isn't saving lives.

We need to re-elect Obama because people will die without healthcare! Meanwhile, Obama systemically murders sovereign international cilivians via drone strikes.

The log jam, boy has it come to a boil point in this country.

"People will die without healthcare! We must sacrifice a few civilians overseas to make that happen and retain it!!"

this.

since when does compassion, respect for life, and recognition that all human beings have a right to exist without fear of being tortured, bombed, dismembered... become contingent on geography? You live over "there" = your life is less valuable long as I get mine. nice.

there is no them. only us.

the lesser of two evils? only part of that phrase I agree with is "evil."

A new study is backing claims that the United States has killed far more civilians in its Pakistan drone strikes than publicly acknowledged. Researchers at New York University and Stanford University say the drone strikes "terrorize men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves." The study also concludes that most of the militants killed in the strikes have been low-level targets whose deaths have failed to make the United States any safer. Just 2 percent of drone attack victims are said to be top militant leaders.

Yeah, but during election season we have: "our" guy, "their" guy, the "protest guy" (i.e., the 3rd party Green or Libertarian candidate that doesn't count), the "also ran, cult following, write in guy" (i.e., Ron Raul, that also doesn't count), and then the "peacenik, ideal guy" (i.e., the Dalai Lama write in for all those who believe that the next president isn't going to continue some foreign policy that involves foreign deaths). Or you can opt to not vote, but those are basically the choices. And, yes, we debate this year-round, but this vote actually counts for something for the next 4 years

Yeah, but during election season we have: "our" guy, "their" guy, the "protest guy" (i.e., the 3rd party Green or Libertarian candidate that doesn't count), the "also ran, cult following, write in guy" (i.e., Ron Raul, that also doesn't count), and then the "peacenik, ideal guy" (i.e., the Dalai Lama write in for all those who believe that the next president isn't going to continue some foreign policy that involves foreign deaths). Or you can opt to not vote, but those are basically the choices. And, yes, we debate this year-round, but this vote actually counts for something for the next 4 years

the only vote that doesn't count is the one that didn't vote out of sheer laziness and ignorance (though, I'm of the opinion that voting really is just a sham game to make it look like we have democratically elected reps.) All the other choices count towards the body or the nobody that it was cast to or not.

But you're right. the divide and conquer of us vs. them is what is turning this country into a boiling pot of oil, with the cold water just minutes away....

the federal government party does this intentionally. You either vote the right hand or the left hand of the federal government party or your vote doesn't count.